Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Proverbs 6:30

[Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;

30. despise ] Some render, make light of, let go unpunished (“non impunis dimittitur fur,” Maur.). But the proper meaning of the Heb. word is to be retained with A.V. and R.V.

“The argument appears to be this: The thief, driven by hunger to steal, is regarded with pity rather than contempt, and yet is punished for the protection of society; how much more then shall the adulterer be despised as one who ‘lacketh understanding,’ and visited with a punishment for which there is no redemption.” Rel. Tr. Soc. Comm.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Pro 6:30

If he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry.

Theft through necessity

The deceitful and perverting influence of sin requires careful consideration. While as yet it is only a principle in the mind, and not ripened into an external action, it draws into its service the various powers of imagination, invention, and even reason itself. By these powers the forbidden object is represented as a source of peculiar enjoyment, or it is invested with features of external attraction, or it is exhibited as fitted to gratify curiosity at least, and to extend the sphere of natural knowledge. Even after the principle is matured into action, and its fatal consequences begin to be felt, it employs the same powers to find excuses and apologies for the act. The sources from which apologies are drawn are exceedingly numerous. But this is the striking peculiarity of sin, that it seeks with greatest eagerness to draw them from the character, the providence, or the Word of God. The passage now before us seems to hold out an excuse for stealing, or at least to take off the odiousness and criminality of it.

I. The aspect of this act in the sight of men. The text implies that by men it is considered as venial or excusable. But it is the act under special limitations.

1. Limited exclusively to food. The thing stolen is not classed as property. It is that which is seldom coveted, and never for its own sake except under the influence of hunger. But this can never be drawn into an excuse for stealing in general. The food is supposed to be taken by the thief only when he is hungry. It is not inspired by covetousness, but by hunger. This is a very important limitation. Food may be stolen with as much criminality as any other thing, for it may be turned into money.

2. But the feeling of hunger itself is restricted by the text. The purpose for which it supposes food to be stolen is to satisfy. The thief must take no more even of it than is necessary to extinguish present hunger. He is not permitted to carry any away either to provide against future necessity, or to procure anything which he may be anxious to possess.

3. Food is supposed to be stolen merely to satisfy the soul–that is, to preserve the life. The thief must be at the point of extreme necessity, at which, if he did not commit the act under consideration, he would actually surrender his life.

II. The aspect of this act in the sight of God. The text does not state that God regards this thief with indulgence. The context implies that this individual has incurred the penalty of the law, and must be punished if he be found. Mercy, which sets aside the demands of the law, is only sin, and, if generally acted on, would be attended with the most ruinous consequences. The mercy of man is a very inadequate medium for contemplating the mercy of God. Though the act under consideration may seem perfectly innocent to man, it may appear highly criminal and dangerous in the sight of God. The justice of this estimate may be clearly perceived by attending to this case of necessity in two aspects.

1. If the thief has been involved in this necessitous condition by his own misconduct–by idleness, intemperance, or any other immoral habit–he is plainly guilty. The very necessity to which he has been reduced is s sinful necessity, since it has been occasioned by his own misconduct.

2. When he has been involved in it by the providence of God. Even in this view the act under consideration is decidedly sinful. It is a serious misimprovement and abuse of Gods providence. We may see that even the most extreme case of necessity will not warrant unbelief and the commission of sin. It is better to surrender even life itself than give way to an immoral and criminal act. A case can never occur in which one precept of the law may be set aside in order to avoid the violation of another. The case in which life is in danger is evidently the most extreme; it plainly comprehends every other. If the law is not to be broken in the superior, it is not to be broken in the inferior case; if it is not to be violated when life is at stake, it is much less to be violated when any inferior benefit is at stake. (George Hislop.)

Accused of theft

At one of the annual Waterloo banquets the Duke of Wellington after dinner handed round for inspection a very valuable presentation snuff-box set with diamonds. After a time it disappeared, and could nowhere be found. The Duke was much annoyed. The guests (there being no servants in the room at the time) were more so, and they all agreed to turn out their pockets. To this one old officer most vehemently objected, and on their pressing the point left the room, notwithstanding that the Duke begged that nothing more might be said about the matter. Of course suspicion fell on the old officer; nobody seemed to know much about him or where he lived. The next year the Duke at the annual banquet put his hand in the pocket of his coat, which he had not worn since the last dinner, and there was the missing snuff-box! The Duke was dreadfully distressed, found out the old officer, who was living in a wretched garret, and apologised. But why, said his Grace, did you not consent to what the other officers proposed, and thus have saved yourself from the terrible suspicion? Because, sir, my pockets were full of broken meat, which I had contrived to put there to save my wife and family, who were at that time literally dying of starvation. The Duke, it is said, sobbed like a child; and it need not be added that the old officer and his family suffered no more from want from that day.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 30. Men do not despise a thief if he steal] Every man pities the poor culprit who was perishing for lack of food, and stole to satisfy his hunger; yet no law clears him: he is bound to make restitution; in some cases double, in others quadruple and quintuple; and if he have not property enough to make restitution, to be sold for a bondsman; Ex 22:1-4; Le 25:39.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Despise, i.e. abhor or reproach him, but rather pity and pardon him, who is urged by mere necessity to these practices.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

30, 31. Such a thief is pitied,though heavily punished.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

[Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal,…. They do not discommend or reproach him for it, or fix a mark of infamy upon him, or expose him to public shame by whipping him; but rather excuse him and pity him when it appears what his case is, what put him upon it, and that he had no other intention in it than to do as follows;

to satisfy his soul; his craving appetite for food, having nothing to eat, nor no other way of getting any: the words should be supplied thus, “for he does this to satisfy his soul”; or, as the Syriac version, “for he steals to satisfy his soul”: and so they are a reason why men do not despise him, nor use him ill, because it is done with no other view; not with a wicked design to hurt his neighbour, nor with a covetous intent to increase his own substance in an unlawful way, but only to satisfy nature in distress; and another reason follows, or the former confirmed;

when he is hungry; or for “he is hungry” s; pressed with famine; the temptation is great, nature urges him to it; and though it is criminal, men in such cases wilt not bear hard upon him for it. The Targum is,

“it is not to be wondered at in a thief that he should steal to satisfy his soul when it is hungry.”

The Vulgate Latin version is,

“it is not a great fault when anyone steals, for he steals to fill a hungry soul;”

it is a fault, but it is not a very heinous one, at least it is not so heinous as adultery, for the sake of which it is mentioned, and with which it is compared: the design of the instance is to show the adultery is far greater than that; and yet in our age we see that the one is severely punished even with death for trifling things, when the other goes unpunished.

s “quia esurit”, Cocceius, Michaelis.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The thief and the adulterer are now placed in comparison with one another, in such a way that adultery is supposed to be a yet greater crime.

30 One does not treat the thief scornfully if he steals

To satisfy his craving when he is hungry;

31 Being seized, he may restore sevenfold,

Give up the whole wealth of his house.

For the most part 30a is explained: even when this is the case, one does not pass it over in the thief as a bagatelle. Ewald remarks: stands here in its nearest signification of overlooking, whence first follows that of contemning. But this “nearest” signification is devised wholly in favour of this passage; – the interpretation, “they do not thus let the thief pass,” is set aside by Son 8:1, Son 8:7; for by 31b, cf. Son 8:7, and 34a, cf. Son 8:6, it is proved that from Pro 6:30 on, reminiscences from the Canticles, which belong to the literature of the Chokma, find their way into the Mashal language of the author. Hitzig’s correct supposition, that always signifies positive contemning, does not necessitate the interrogative interpretation: “Does not one despise the thief if…?” Thus to be understood, the author ought to have written or . Michaelis rightly: furtum licet merito pro infami in republica habetur, tamen si cum adulterio comparatur, minus probrosum est . Regarding in the sense of appetite, and even throat and stomach, vid., Psychologie, p. 204. A second is, that the thief, if he is seized (but we regard not as the hypoth. perf., but as the part. deprehensus), may make compensation for this crime. The fut. thus to be understood as the potential lies near from this, that a sevenfold compensation of the thing stolen is unheard of in the Israelitish law; it knows only of a twofold, fourfold, fivefold restoration, Ex. 21:37; Exo 22:1-3, Exo 22:8 (cf. Saalschtz, Mos. Recht, p. 554ff.). This excess over that which the law rendered necessary leads into the region of free-will: he (the thief, by which we are now only to think of him whom bitter necessity has made such) may make compensation sevenfold, i.e., superabundantly; he may give up the whole possessions ( vid., on at Pro 1:13) of his house, so as not merely to satisfy the law, but to appease him against whom he has done wrong, and again to gain for himself an honoured name. What is said in Pro 6:30 and Pro 6:31 is perfectly just. One does not contemn a man who is a thief through poverty, he is pitied; while the adulterer goes to ruin under all circumstances of contempt and scorn. And: theft may be made good, and that abundantly; but adultery and its consequences are irreparable.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

(30) Men do not despise a thief . . .A man who is driven to theft by poverty is more worthy of pity than disdain; not so the adulterer. Again, the thief can make retribution, while the adulterer can have none to offer.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

30, 31. Do not despise, etc. That is, Do not despise his crime, as if it was venial; others say, Do not wonder at it. Though men pity the poor thief who steals merely to supply a pressing necessity, yet the law will not acquit him. He must suffer the penalty. This varied: sometimes stripes, sometimes restitution, or both. And the amount of restitution varied: in some cases double, in others fourfold, in others five or sevenfold; and if he had not property enough he might be sold for a bondman. See Exo 22:1-4; Lev 25:37. The old law did not require more than fourfold. Sevenfold is, perhaps, to be taken in its frequent Hebrew meaning of ample, sufficient.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

To Steal A Man’s Wife By Adultery Is Far Worse And Far More Costly Than To Steal His Possessions, For Compensation Can Be Made For Stolen Possessions, But No Compensation Will Be Considered As Satisfactory For Adultery ( Pro 6:30-35 ).

A comparison is now made between a man who is hungry and steals in order to satisfy his hunger, who in consequence has to pay a heavy price, and a man who is sexually hungry and steals his neighbour’s wife in order to satisfy his hunger. But in his case no price will be sufficient. The husband will not be satisfied by anything that he can offer. He will require the ultimate penalty.

This subsection may be analysed as follows:

A Men do not despise a thief, if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry (Pro 6:30).

B But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold, he shall give all the substance of his house (Pro 6:31).

C He who commits adultery with a woman is void of understanding, he does it who would destroy his own soul (Pro 6:32).

C Wounds and dishonour will he get, and his reproach will not be wiped away (Pro 6:33).

B For jealousy is the rage of a man, and he will not spare in the day of vengeance (Pro 6:34).

A He will not regard any ransom, nor will he rest content, though you give many gifts (Pro 6:35).

Note that in A men do not despise a thief who steals for good cause, but in the parallel a husband totally despises a man who steals his wife. In B a thief may have to give all that he has in reparation, but in the parallel no reparation will be satisfactory. He will not be spared. Finally in C an adulterer destroys his own life, for in the parallel he will receive wounds and dishonour, and everlasting reproach.

Pro 6:30-31

‘Men do not despise a thief, if he steals

To satisfy himself when he is hungry,

But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold,

He shall give all the substance of his house.’

All decent men will sympathise with a thief who is driven to stealing by pure hunger (we might translate ‘when he is famished’). Nevertheless if he is caught he will be called on to make reparation. He will restore ‘sevenfold’ is a way of saying that he will be called on to make reparation to the full extent required (compare how Cain would be avenged sevenfold – Gen 4:15). If necessary he will have to give everything that he possesses (all the substance of his house), and become a slave, in order to make reparation.

Pro 6:32-33

‘He who commits adultery with a woman is void of understanding,

He does it who would destroy his own soul.’

Wounds and dishonour will he get,

And his reproach will not be wiped away.

But there can be no sympathy for a man who steals his neighbour’s wife. He is void of understanding. He has no justification. And the one who does it is not satisfying hunger, he is destroying his own life. All he can expect to received are wounds and dishonour. He may expect to be attacked physically by the husband, who may also have assisted with the death sentence, and psychologically by the whole of society. It was a crime that society looked on as heinous and unforgivable. It hit at the very root of family life. Thus his reproach would never be wiped away. If he did live (it may be that by Solomon’s time the death sentence had been replaced by a lashing), he would always be seen as the man who stole another man’s wife (compare Deu 25:10 of the one who refused to raise up seed to his brother). And if he died he would carry his reproach beyond the grave.

Pro 6:34-35

‘For jealousy is the rage of a man,

And he will not spare in the day of vengeance,

He will not regard any ransom,

Nor will he rest content, though you give many gifts.’

Nor would there be any relenting by the husband who had been cheated. For jealousy more than anything else inflames men’s burning rage, indeed it is regularly the source of that rage. Thus the husband will be filled with constant rage against him and will not spare him or relent in the day when he is able to obtain his vengeance. Nor will he be bought off. He will not accept any offer of ransom. Nor will he rest content and allow his rage to subside, even though he is given more and more compensation. Nothing will stop him. He will not rest until he feels that he has been fully requited through maximum judgment coming on the adulterer.

It will be noted that Pro 6:24-35 began with ‘you, your’ (Pro 6:24-25), referring to the young man, and now ends with ‘you’ (Pro 6:35) with the verses in between referring to an impersonal ‘he’ which refers to the ‘man’ in Proverbs 6:37. His aim is to make the young man feel involved, and take the warning personally.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Pro 6:30 [Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;

Ver. 30. Men do not despise a thief. ] We used to say, A liar is worse than a thief; a and Siracides saith the same of a constant liar. (chap. 20) But that an adulterer is worse than a thief, the Holy Ghost here assureth us; and his reasons are unanswerable. For, first, his necessity pleads for him: b he must either steal or starve; and this doth somewhat excuse him, a tanto, as they say, but not a tote; for as a man should rather die than lie, so he should rather perish than purloin or pilfer. But what excuse hath the adulterer? – non ventris inediam patitur, sed cordis indigentiam, He wants not meat, but wit; he preserveth not his body, but destroyeth his soul.

a Potior est fur quam qui assidue mentitur.

b , . – Suidas.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)